Kolkata Court August 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gautam Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN344
Pranab Kumar Deb, J.1. This instant appeal has been directed against the conviction and sentence dated 6.7.1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Midnapore in connection with Sessions Trial No. V of December, 1989.2. Following the shocking incident of rape and murder of a little girl called Putul Maity, the G.R. case being No. 422 of 1988 was registered. The prosecution case as narrated in the FIR and unfurled in course of the trial, was to the effect that on 18th December, 1988 round about 09-30 in the morning the girl called Putul Maity went out of her house for the purpose of visiting her uncle Nira Maity at the Lock Gate at Gangakhali. Since the girl did not return home by 1 p.m., her relations and neighbours went out searching for her. The girl was wearing a printed cotton frock with embroideries. She also wore ear rings and nose ring. As the neighbours and relations fanned out, the informant Dilip Kr. Biswas found the appellant Gautam Biswas standing on the northern courtyard...
Sri Sukumar Dey Vs. the Municipal Commissioner and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-2005
Reported in: (2006)1CALLT299(HC)
Asit Kumar Bisi, J.1. The instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India preferred by the petitioner is directed against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Chairman, Municipal Building Tribunal on 15.2.05 in B.T. Appeal No. 14 of 2001.2. The facts leading to filing of the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may briefly be stated thus.3. Premises No. 12 and 13, Raja Rajendra Lal Mitra Road, Kolkata 700 010 which are adjacent premises belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of both the petitioner Sukumar Dey and opposite party No. 6 Jaya Addy and by way of inheritance the petitioner became owner of premises No. 12, Raja Rejendra Lal Mitra Road and opposite party No. 6 became owner of premises No. 13, Raja Rajendra Lal Mitra Road. Both the petitioner and opposite party No. 6 have been residing at the said respective premises. The petitioner constructed one room and one kitchen on the roof of ground floor of premises No. 12, Raja...
S.B.i. Home Finance Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Cal)623,[2006]280ITR6(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. This appeal was admitted on the following grounds :'(1) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that your petitioner was not the owner of the said plant is perverse having been arrived at by ignoring the relevant materials and taking into consideration irrelevant and extraneous considerations and such finding is otherwise arbitrary ?(2) Whether the Tribunal having found that the lease dt. 30th Dec., 1994 was not a colourable transaction and was legally valid could hold that your petitioner was not the owner of the said plant ?(3) Whether the Tribunal could hold that your petitioner was not the owner of the said plant and was not entitled to depreciation thereon when neither WPIL nor SIL claimed any ownership of the said plant and claimed any depreciation thereon ?(4) Whether the claim for depreciation on the said plant could be denied when the rental income therefrom was assessed ?'Section 32 : Own : Ownership : Meaning of:2. The question is dependent on the interpretation ...
Santanu Chaudhuri Vs. Subir Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN315
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21st December, 1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 9th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.42 of 1996 thereby dismissing the said suit.2. The appellant herein filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the respondent herein by describing him as a trespasser and also for mesne profit and the case made out by the appellant may be summed up thus:(a) The plaintiff was appointed administrator of the estate left by his father by virtue of an order passed by the High Court and in the capacity of such administrator, he inducted one Kali Saha as a licensee in the suit property for the purpose of use of the portion thereof for ceremonial occasions. As charge for induction as such licensee, the said Shri Saha agreed to pay Rs. 1,500/- a day to the plaintiff. Such authority given...
Jayanta Kumar Sikdar Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN288
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 17.01.2002 by which O. A. No. 1438 of 1997 filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed.2. The relevant facts of the case are that an order of suspension was issued against the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Bench, in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. Thereafter, on 20th June, 1996, the petitioner was directed to attend the office regularly and the suspension order was virtually withdrawn. The petitioner was thereafter served with a chargesheet alleging misconduct and the petitioner was directed to state in writing within seven days from the date of receipt of the chargesheet whether the petitioner would accept the charges in full or in part or whether the petitioner would like to face an enquiry in respect of those charges. After time was extended to the petitioner to give reply to the charges, the petitioner gave a reply denying...
Bangladesh Shipping Corporation Vs. Bata India Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal32,2006(3)CHN276
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for recovery of money and is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated July 22, 1988 passed by the Assistant District Judge, 8th Court, Alipore in Money Suit No. 54 of 1982 thereby passing a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,09,315/- against the appellant herein.2. The respondent filed the aforesaid suit, in the 8th Court of Assistant District Judge, Alipore, against the appellant, and the ease made out by the respondents may be summed up thus :(a) On or about 24th April, 1981, on the vessel 'S.S. SOLIDARITY' owned by the defendant, at the port of Moji, Japan, 200 bags of special grade synthetic rubber known as 'NIPOL HS-860 B.T.N.' in good condition were boarded by Messers Ferimek Ltd. Tokyo, Japan and the defendant in consideration of the freight paid, agreed with the said shipper to carry to the port of Calcutta and deliver those goods in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract...
Hasi Mazumdar and anr. Vs. the West Bengal State Electricity Board and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal59
ORDERGirish Chandra Gupta, J.1. Two several provisional assessments both dated 7th August, 2004, purporting to have been made under Clause 22(J) of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity are under challenge in this writ petition. Briefly stated the facts and circumstances of the case are as follows.2. The writ petitioner No. 1 is the wife of Bidhu Bhusan Mazumdar. The writ petitioner No. 2 is younger brother of the said Shri Bidhu Bhusan Mazumdar. Both the writ petitioners are the recorded consumers of electricity. The service connection provided to the writ petitioner No. 1 is A/3402/1 under consumer No. E300042. The service connection provided to the writ petitioner No. 2 is A/4214/1 under consumer No. E300063. Their case is that they are law abiding citizens. They have regularly been paying the bills raised upon them for electricity consumed. They have two several small businesses (i) wheat grinding machine (ii) Icecream factory. They never indulged in any unfair practice...
Abdul Annas Khan Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: 1(2006)CLT313
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. Series of litigations have taken place between the petitioner and the respondent No. 8 who are two rival traders; both engaged in the same business of holding Cowmarket within the same Panchayat Samiti. A dispute arose between them with regard to the fixation of dates for holding their respective Hats on their respective plots of land.2. Let me give the short background of the dispute between the parties leading to the filing of this writ petition.3. For holding a cowmarket in Chandipur Panchayat Samiti area within the district of Purba Medinipur, the petitioner got his land lying at Plot No. 1037 (.24 decimals), Plot No. 1035 (.02 decimal), Plot No. 1036 (.05 decimal), Plot No. 1016 (29 decimal) and Plot No. 1039 (.02 decimal) Total area 62 decimal at Mouza Nar, J.L. No. 39 within Khatian No. 603, Police Station Chandipur, District Purba Medinipur (hereinafter referred to as the said land) converted from agricultural to non-agricultural land under Section ...
Md. Mujibar Molla @ Khokan and anr. Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN639
Amit Talukdar, J.1. Since a Division Bench while dealing with an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) in respect of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the said Act) felt:--'Whether the restrictions/limitations imposed by or under Section 37 of the NDPS Act upon the power of the Court to grant bail are also applicable to an offence in relation to ganja etc. made punishable 20(i) under Section thereof?'2. Their Lordships of the said Division Bench directed the matter be placed before the learned Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench. Pursuant thereof we have been asked to answer the said reference after formation of this Special Bench by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.3. The factual matrix germane for answering the reference in our view requires to be set out for profitable discussion.4. Consequent to submission of the chargesheet in ...
Birla Corporation Ltd. and Gouri Shankar Kayan and ors. Vs. East India ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN510,[2006]133CompCas515(Cal),[2006]66SCL180(Cal)
Indira Banerjee, J.1. This appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, is against an order dated 25th April, 2005 of the learned Company Law Board, in an application of the appellants under Section 247(1A) read with Section 250 of the Companies Act, 1956, refusing to direct the Central Government to appoint an Inspector and/or Inspectors to investigate into the affairs of Birla Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the company, as regards the membership of the company and other matters relating to the company, for the purpose of ascertaining the true persons who are financially interested in the success or failure of the company or are controlling the company.2. The appellants, who admittedly own less than 0.16 per cent of the shares of the company, filed an application in the Company Law Board under Section 247(1A) read with Section 250 of the Companies Act, inter alia praying for the following orders:'(a) The relevant facts in relation to the shares in the company particul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »